D&D 3.x [Let's Read] The Frank & K Tomes

[VHawkwinter]

1. Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition must be balanced against the standards of highly-optimized primary spellcasters making use of particular game-breaking exploits. Case in point, using Planar Binding and Candles of Invocation to entrap noble efreeti and djinnis into getting multiple castings of the Wish spell as early as 9th level, which is the lynchpin of what the Tome authors call the Wish Economy.
2. Favoritism of players in the social contract. The Gaming Den's ideal view of a Dungeon Master is akin to that of a physics engine in a video game: their primary role is to manage the objective mechanics in the game world, de-empasizing their nature as judge and arbiter of the rules. They encourage the removal of as many elements that can be left to DM Fiat as possible, for fear of such power being abused.
3. Avoidance of "Magical Tea Party," a term that refers to any element of an RPG that is improvised or doesn't make use of explicit rules in the system. While it ties into the above, the term is so frequently used on the Den as to be an independent section.
4. Rules as a physics engine, where the underlying mechanics of gameplay can persist independently of player and DM input. Events that occur during downtime and between adventures must abide by game mechanics and not be handwaved. This is done for the ultimate purpose of presenting a world that is greater than the people sitting at the table. In practical terms, players and DMs rolling dice in isolation outside of game night to generate outcomes are viewed as either a legitimate exploit of the rules, or nigh-mandatory in order to assure that the next adventure starts in a way that is believable to the group. For example, let's say that the town's silver dragon guardian is poisoned and can only be cured by an exotic herb. Well, the DM better roll the dragon a Fortitude save to see if the adventure the DM desires can even be run!

I first read the Tomes in 2009 when we picked up PF1. Although I didn't agree with everything they did, I still appreciate three of these points (and my favourite games I've played outside of 3.0+ are Shadowrun 4th edition (available in a big humble bundle right now FYI); GURPS 4e; and then to a lesser extent, Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplay (the 1999 version); Mongoose RuneQuest 2 / Legend / RuneQuest 6 / Mythras; and The Dark Eye (The English one)). "Rules as Physics; avoidance of 'Magical Tea Party' & Favouritism of the Players in the Social Contract" I absolutely think make for better gameplay.

As for their assumption of game breaking exploits and the assumption that the rules must be run hyperliterally even for bizarre reinterpretations, that went too far, but it was refreshing to see someone's proposed "fixes" of 3e not just making a 4e knockoff or a worse version of RuneQuest; With some sort of e6 or 'ban full casters entirely and play a totally different feeling game that no longer resembles the D&D novels you're playing D&D for its similarity to'.

I don't think I ever actually used any of their 'fixes', but they were an interesting read.

 

[VHawkwinter]

But what is most tragic is that the Gaming Den's metaphorical raising of the drawbridge is that they let much of the rest of the tabletop industry pass them by.

As someone who shared some of their criticisms and was partially receptive to some of the ideas they had on offer - the tabletop industry as a whole (aside from a couple niche German imports, a new minor revision of the RuneQuest from 2005 I already had (Mythras), and some GURPS stuff) has not really made products for those of us who like more simulationist leaning games in a very long time (Though Ed Greenwood's self published setting material on DM's Guild is lovely as someone who is not using the mechanics). The tabletop industry moved in a different direction away from games I like, such that I have found myself making my own game over the last ~2 years rather than liking the new offerings.

Many problems of D&D pointed out in the Tome series and the broader critical analysis sphere have since been solved and standardized: 4th and 5th Edition defanged alignment of its mechanical focus, making it easier than ever to treat it as a rarely-thought of background element.

This one, I agree, is good.

The Pathfinder designers, one of whom once claimed Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards was the fault of the players and not the system, have since realized these balance issues and made a 2nd Edition that rewards tactical gameplay and appeals to robust character creation options while giving each class a distinct role and place at the table.

I did not enjoy PF2 when I tried it. It felt like a mix of things I hated from 4e, and things I hated from 5e, and the lack of backward compatibility meant I couldn't reasonably 'fix' it by importing subsystems and classes I liked from games I thought had better gameplay. Yes, they accomplished closer class balance, but they did so in a way I found not fun at the table. That said, the last time I played either PF2 or 5e was early 2020 before lockdowns.

The increasing acceptance of X-cards

My experience of X Cards actually seeing use has been exclusively been by players abusing the mechanic to veto the central premise of a prepublished adventure, skip the combat, and finish the module in half the allotted time, ruining the one-shot for the other four people at the table. Plus, if you're someone whose "Lines" a la "Lines and Veils" includes "retcons" - even non-abused X-Card use is likely to ruin the session or campaign. And then that controversial youtube real-play scene I'm sure we're all aware of at least tangentially, where the X-Card was available and didn't see use, and people found the non-X-Carded content traumatic - though I don't know the people involved in that controversy, from reading about everything that happened, I really think they needed in-advance adult discussion of what kinds of polarising content was and was not appropriate for the campaign, Lines and Veils stuff, during session 0. Though I can appreciate what the X-Card designer hoped for, I genuinely do not think X-Cards are fit for purpose - just a new way for bad-actors to ruin things for everyone else.

lines and veils, and Session 0 have been indispensable in rooting out problem players and power-tripping DMs

These, on the other hand, I think are great. There is no social contract that can be assumed except what was explicitly discussed and agreed upon. So talk it out.

allowing gamers better tools than the Den's failed tactics of "how can we alter the rules to prevent the DM's abuse of authority?"

However, I do think setting up the rules in such a way as to prevent the GM's abuse of authority (such as a structured group vote on how to resolve mechanics which can be interpreted multiple ways, with the GM only voting to break ties; and the GM not being allowed to introduce houserules after people have made characters without a majority vote to adopt the houserule) - I have found useful for reducing arguments and having players tell me they consider my GMing very fair.

I think a bigger reason to make the rules more explicit isn't about a fear of abuse of authority though, it's about consistent game mechanics, and acknowledging that an on-the-spot ruling is very unlikely to be as consistent, fair, and balanced as something a game designer spent hours crunching the numbers or doing research for. Putting less on the shoulders of the GM means they don't have to do it all, you can delegate some portions of game arbitrage to the players, reducing the cognitive load on the GM, and you get a better, more consistent game as a result.

In a less negative space, they might take solace in the fact that D&D and the wider tabletop fandom has made steps towards a vision closer to theirs. But in their anger they could not see this, or at least didn't wish to acknowledge it.

And tying it back to my opening comment, given their preference for 'rules-as-physics', and their preference for higher powered play (certainly higher powered than I like, and I am very happy with open-ended 6th-9th level 3e spells being in a D&D type game - just not wish-economy exploits or similar), I would speculate that the "fixes" the industry has moved toward since 2010, would not be considered improvements to them - as the ones I've tried generally haven't been for me (Except maybe the mid-2010s German-Translated "The Dark Eye").

They thought that the world outside their walls and moat was a desolate land, when in reality the rest of the gaming world is lush and thriving.

Thriving, yes, but making games for a different demographic - good for other people, certainly, but if I am not having fun playing a lot of these new systems for more than a one-shot, I won't want to use them for campaigns I run, and won't really want to join one.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Vote for the ones you'd be most interested in hearing about

The one in the list I would be interested in a review of is Spycraft 2.0.

There's other stuff I'd love to see indepth reviews of, either to see what other people think of them, or to get a good review of something I never had a chance to try, but of the ones in your list, Spycraft 2.0.

This review series was a very interesting read which gave me much to think about this evening. So, thank you.

 

[VHawkwinter]

For instance, gorillas in real life cannot swim due to their physiology, but in 3.5 their high Strength scores and the low DC to swim even in rough water makes the opposite true. That doesn't mean that we need to turn all apes in a setting into robots,* but it does show the impracticality of Frank and K's design. If we really want to be consistent regarding bugs in D&D, we'll now have to think about and rework the entire animal kingdom and agriculture, especially given that farmers can't use poison anymore to deal with insect infestations!

That's very true. (Though in an ideal world, with digital games rather than paper, when something like this is pointed out, the devs could patch the animal statblock, or add an errata). Perhaps this suggests that the swimming rules could use an update to work properly for things other than humans.

One I know bugged me about 3e, is that an elephant falling off a cliff will much more likely to survive it than a mouse falling off of a cliff, and that is not how the square-cube law works. I houseruled that in my home games many years back now (fall famage is the same for medium creatures, but for each size below the damage is halved (down to 1) and then the increment is doubled from there; while for creatures above medium, the increment is halved to 5ft, and then the damage doubled per increment beyond that (and naturally flying creatures count as... IIRC 2 sizes smaller for fall damage).

 

[VHawkwinter]

Again though - minor nitpicking aside, I found your review thought provoking, and I never really got into the Gaming Den as a community, beyond reading the houserules and finding them interesting in 2009 or 2010. Thanks.

 

[Libertad]

I first read the Tomes in 2009 when we picked up PF1. Although I didn't agree with everything they did, I still appreciate three of these points (and my favourite games I've played outside of 3.0+ are Shadowrun 4th edition (available in a big humble bundle right now FYI); GURPS 4e; and then to a lesser extent, Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplay (the 1999 version); Mongoose RuneQuest 2 / Legend / RuneQuest 6 / Mythras; and The Dark Eye (The English one)). "Rules as Physics; avoidance of 'Magical Tea Party' & Favouritism of the Players in the Social Contract" I absolutely think make for better gameplay.

As for their assumption of game breaking exploits and the assumption that the rules must be run hyperliterally even for bizarre reinterpretations, that went too far, but it was refreshing to see someone's proposed "fixes" of 3e not just making a 4e knockoff or a worse version of RuneQuest; With some sort of e6 or 'ban full casters entirely and play a totally different feeling game that no longer resembles the D&D novels you're playing D&D for its similarity to'.

I don't think I ever actually used any of their 'fixes', but they were an interesting read.

I think that in 2006 to 2007 they were ahead of the curve on some issues, but didn't really commit to being wholly complete. It's very easy to criticize the shortcomings of a system, another thing entirely to build an alternative. That's probably why wholesale rules revisions such as FantasyCraft are so rare. Making a viable set of rules is a huge group effort requiring playtesters, production values, and a willingness to accept good-faith criticism and compromise of one's personal vision to better refine a product for general sale. Something the Tome authors were not so great at doing.

My experience of X Cards actually seeing use has been exclusively been by players abusing the mechanic to veto the central premise of a prepublished adventure, skip the combat, and finish the module in half the allotted time, ruining the one-shot for the other four people at the table. Plus, if you're someone whose "Lines" a la "Lines and Veils" includes "retcons" - even non-abused X-Card use is likely to ruin the session or campaign. And then that controversial youtube real-play scene I'm sure we're all aware of at least tangentially, where the X-Card was available and didn't see use, and people found the non-X-Carded content traumatic - though I don't know the people involved in that controversy, from reading about everything that happened, I really think they needed in-advance adult discussion of what kinds of polarising content was and was not appropriate for the campaign, Lines and Veils stuff, during session 0. Though I can appreciate what the X-Card designer hoped for, I genuinely do not think X-Cards are fit for purpose - just a new way for bad-actors to ruin things for everyone else.

This is my personal experience, but the bad actors would've found other ways to sabotage campaigns even if X-Cards weren't in use. I can understand why some groups would prefer a quick "flag" via a signal than outright discussion, which carries its own weaknesses, but I take it that it's more a subjective level of comfort.

However, I do think setting up the rules in such a way as to prevent the GM's abuse of authority (such as a structured group vote on how to resolve mechanics which can be interpreted multiple ways, with the GM only voting to break ties; and the GM not being allowed to introduce houserules after people have made characters without a majority vote to adopt the houserule) - I have found useful for reducing arguments and having players tell me they consider my GMing very fair.

I think that "we need rules to curb the DM abusing their authority" already implies a lack of trust and adversarial stance, which is already starting off the group on the wrong foot. It's treating what should be a casual social hangout to something closer to a governmental organization where you have to create rules with the expectation that there are bad actors out there who are going to abuse the system. If you're thinking that way about friends and acquaintances you're coming together to sling dice and make Monty Python jokes, there's a deeper problem than what's in the game mechanics.

I think a bigger reason to make the rules more explicit isn't about a fear of abuse of authority though, it's about consistent game mechanics, and acknowledging that an on-the-spot ruling is very unlikely to be as consistent, fair, and balanced as something a game designer spent hours crunching the numbers or doing research for. Putting less on the shoulders of the GM means they don't have to do it all, you can delegate some portions of game arbitrage to the players, reducing the cognitive load on the GM, and you get a better, more consistent game as a result.

True, but the Tomes don't really work at this as they don't really provide DM advice for rebalancing large parts of the game around their high-powered options and trivialization of resource management in 3.5. I don't know to what extent this is due to the Tomes being an ultimately unfinished product vs. a reflection of the Gaming Den's own biased views against the "tyranny of the DM," but I imagine it's more of the latter than the former based on my own experiences and observations of their community.

And tying it back to my opening comment, given their preference for 'rules-as-physics', and their preference for higher powered play (certainly higher powered than I like, and I am very happy with open-ended 6th-9th level 3e spells being in a D&D type game - just not wish-economy exploits or similar), I would speculate that the "fixes" the industry has moved toward since 2010, would not be considered improvements to them - as the ones I've tried generally haven't been for me (Except maybe the mid-2010s German-Translated "The Dark Eye").

They wouldn't consider these improvements quite simply due to the fact that a significant portion of the Gaming Den just likes to talk sh*t to talk sh*t. As you can see in Frank and K's Exalted "review," they aren't above grasping at the thinnest of straws to criticize a product. The whole "five people worked on this book" being described as a bad thing in and of itself is quite rich coming from someone who both worked as a freelancer for 2 Shadowrun products with far more employees, and for someone who has reviewed dozens of sourcebooks with larger writing teams. And while there are outliers, a significant portion of the Den support whatever Frank Trollman in particular espoused, including the notion that D&D 5e is actually a vaporware product.

Thriving, yes, but making games for a different demographic - good for other people, certainly, but if I am not having fun playing a lot of these new systems for more than a one-shot, I won't want to use them for campaigns I run, and won't really want to join one.

I think that may be because your own tastes are in the minority. I don't mean this as an insult, so much that the ethos espoused by the Gaming Den and like-minded people isn't really a sought out for playstyle. Either for people at the gaming table or as a customer base to which to cater. I understand that this can make it all the more frustrating when most gamers don't share your playstyle, so I sympathize with you on that front.

That's very true. (Though in an ideal world, with digital games rather than paper, when something like this is pointed out, the devs could patch the animal statblock, or add an errata). Perhaps this suggests that the swimming rules could use an update to work properly for things other than humans.

One I know bugged me about 3e, is that an elephant falling off a cliff will much more likely to survive it than a mouse falling off of a cliff, and that is not how the square-cube law works. I houseruled that in my home games many years back now (fall famage is the same for medium creatures, but for each size below the damage is halved (down to 1) and then the increment is doubled from there; while for creatures above medium, the increment is halved to 5ft, and then the damage doubled per increment beyond that (and naturally flying creatures count as... IIRC 2 sizes smaller for fall damage).

I think that these kinds of situations are going to be inevitable no matter how detailed or simulationist the rules system is. Rules are better off done as an abstraction, and such scenarios are better off handled as ad hoc rulings given how rarely they will come up in most gaming groups. And in regards to digital games, I feel that this is one advantage video games have over tabletop: an immersive sim and physics engine is a workable goal for the former, but unrealistic for the latter.

Again though - minor nitpicking aside, I found your review thought provoking, and I never really got into the Gaming Den as a community, beyond reading the houserules and finding them interesting in 2009 or 2010. Thanks.

Thank you. I don't mind minor nitpicking as long as it's made in good faith.

 

[Libertad]

The one in the list I would be interested in a review of is Spycraft 2.0.

There's other stuff I'd love to see indepth reviews of, either to see what other people think of them, or to get a good review of something I never had a chance to try, but of the ones in your list, Spycraft 2.0.

This review series was a very interesting read which gave me much to think about this evening. So, thank you.

The polling period has since passed, and the winner was Elder Evils, which I also reviewed on this site here.

Monte Cook's Iron Heroes and Zelda D20 were the runners up, but TBH I don't know when I'll get around to those.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I think that in 2006 to 2007 they were ahead of the curve on some issues, but didn't really commit to being wholly complete. It's very easy to criticize the shortcomings of a system, another thing entirely to build an alternative. That's probably why wholesale rules revisions such as FantasyCraft are so rare. Making a viable set of rules is a huge group effort requiring playtesters, production values, and a willingness to accept good-faith criticism and compromise of one's personal vision to better refine a product for general sale. Something the Tome authors were not so great at doing.

That seems accurate. I am now 2 years into making my own heavily redesigned 3.x game.

This is my personal experience, but the bad actors would've found other ways to sabotage campaigns even if X-Cards weren't in use. I can understand why some groups would prefer a quick "flag" via a signal than outright discussion, which carries its own weaknesses, but I take it that it's more a subjective level of comfort.

If the X-Card mechanic required explanation upon use it would be better, but a no-discussion absolute-veto, is inherently broken, IMO. If bad actors are going to sabotage the game some other way, confrontation over their behaviour can be swift. Any time I've seen the X-Cards in place they're treated as a sacred ritual which cannot be evaluated or questioned, only obeyed. Which makes it a perfect tool for abuse. I think the X-Card system makes assumptions about human behaviour which just aren't correct. Someone in the middle of a panic attack is likely to forget it exists, while for bad actors it's a perfect tool to abuse. And if I know the group well enough that I could trust them not to abuse the X-Card, I know them well enough that a session 0 discussion will be more than sufficient.

I think that "we need rules to curb the DM abusing their authority" already implies a lack of trust and adversarial stance, which is already starting off the group on the wrong foot.

If you assume the GM is acting out of Malice, sure (which I understand from your review, that seems to be the Gaming Den's assumption). If you are trying to prevent bad times caused by GM inexperience, or the simple difficulty of trying to keep many things straight at the same time, however, it's offloading some of the cognitive load to an explicit mutual framework which allows a bunch of the little details to be managed by the group as a whole rather than all dumped on the GM.

It's treating what should be a casual social hangout to something closer to a governmental organization where you have to create rules with the expectation that there are bad actors out there who are going to abuse the system.

I think that kind of framework that assumes bad actors exist and will need to be addressed is necessary for public tables where you don't know everyone involved well. Many games operate under that environment. Convention games, and online games in particular, everyone in the group may not already be friends with a rapport and trust built up over years.

I don't think it's a "casual social hangout" though. It's a commitment to a group schedule where you not showing up affects other people. It's closer to joining a sports team. If you and Jim no-call-no-show, Jeff and Susan shelled out $50 in gas to get here, and now we're stuck playing boardgames instead because we don't have enough people to run a proper session. This particular headache has had me actively consider trying the West Marches structure where each session is scheduled individually and only happens if at least 4 players schedule it.

True, but the Tomes don't really work at this as they don't really provide DM advice for rebalancing large parts of the game around their high-powered options and trivialization of resource management in 3.5. I don't know to what extent this is due to the Tomes being an ultimately unfinished product vs. a reflection of the Gaming Den's own biased views against the "tyranny of the DM," but I imagine it's more of the latter than the former based on my own experiences and observations of their community.

That's fair. I think that's a lot of why I never actually used their "fixes" after I read them (though I considered trying their feat rebalances, without the rest). It felt like they were pointing out problems without fixing most of them.

They wouldn't consider these improvements quite simply due to the fact that a significant portion of the Gaming Den just likes to talk sh*t to talk sh*t. As you can see in Frank and K's Exalted "review," they aren't above grasping at the thinnest of straws to criticize a product. The whole "five people worked on this book" being described as a bad thing in and of itself is quite rich coming from someone who both worked as a freelancer for 2 Shadowrun products with far more employees, and for someone who has reviewed dozens of sourcebooks with larger writing teams.

Okay, fair point. But they do seem to skew more simulationist (the fact that he wrote for Shadowrun 4 or 5 lines up with that), and most of the "Fixes" since 2010 for the issues people identified in 3.x are for a non-simulationist gaming psychographic.

And while there are outliers, a significant portion of the Den support whatever Frank Trollman in particular espoused

Ah yes, cults of personality.

including the notion that D&D 5e is actually a vaporware product.

What's his argument there? Because I 100% found it to be a bait and switch from what was promised their plan was back when Monte Cook was on the team, and the marketing that they were "Bringing Back" the Realms. I have buyer's remorse for all my 5e books I purchased except for: Lost Tales of Myth Drannor (limited print run Gen Con book I had to PoD); Dragon Heist (which I treat as some additional people and locations and maps for the 2e City of Splendors boxed set and the 3e Waterdeep hardcover, and don't use as intended); and Out of the Abyss (which was outsourced to Wolfgang Baur of Kobold Press). Definitely felt like it was false advertising. My 5e books live in a box at the back of my closet (which is a step down from my WoD books which are on the small book shelf I rarely look at, which itself is a step down from my main bookshelf of books I like and am likely to use again in the future).

I think that may be because your own tastes are in the minority. I don't mean this as an insult, so much that the ethos espoused by the Gaming Den and like-minded people isn't really a sought out for playstyle. Either for people at the gaming table or as a customer base to which to cater. I understand that this can make it all the more frustrating when most gamers don't share your playstyle, so I sympathize with you on that front.

Yeah, more simulationist gaming is a niche, and one which has been neglected since ~2008. I talked about it yesterday, here. I agree I'm in the minority. One doesn't conclude the industry has mostly stopped making games they like and if they want new games they like they will have to make them themselves, if they're the target audience of many existing productlines.

I think that these kinds of situations are going to be inevitable no matter how detailed or simulationist the rules system is.

They are inevitable, sure. You can catch the ones which are more likely to come up, but you'll never catch all of them.

Rules are better off done as an abstraction, and such scenarios are better off handled as ad hoc rulings given how rarely they will come up in most gaming groups.

To some extent I agree, but I think where we disagree is in the fidelity of the mechanics which come up regularly, and how rare an 'edge case' would need to be for it to not be worth patching. There is, afterall, a reason I like GURPS and Shadowrun4e, and Rolemaster 4e, and Mythras, but didn't like Savage Worlds / OVA or Shadowrun 6e or the "new" Chaosium Runequest.

And in regards to digital games, I feel that this is one advantage video games have over tabletop: an immersive sim and physics engine is a workable goal for the former, but unrealistic for the latter.

I don't think you need a whole accurate physics engine like a videogame, for a simulationist-leaning TTRPG, but there's a reason my more simulationist-leaning 3.x rewrite TTRPG is being built as an app, not a paper book. A more simulationist-leaning game will have more stuff going on to keep track of, and digital tools will allow me to make that more user-friendly than the likes of Shadowrun and GURPS. So, I agree with you here as well, actually. The gameplay I like in a TTRPG are inherently slower and clunkier if it needs to be run entirely through human memory of a big book. I do think you could run GURPS or Shadowrun 4e very nicely through a Foundry VTT Module or similar though.

Thank you. I don't mind minor nitpicking as long as it's made in good faith.

- I always appreciate someone who can take good-faith minor nitpicking without getting angry and taking it as a personal attack.

The polling period has since passed, and the winner was Elder Evils, which I also reviewed on this site here.

Monte Cook's Iron Heroes and Zelda D20 were the runners up, but TBH I don't know when I'll get around to those.

Fair fair. I'll check out your Elder Evils article later. I've just added it to my reading list.